DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 and 24 recites the broad recitation “one of a triangle and a Reuleaux triangle”, and the claim also recites “the Reuleaux triangle” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 2, 4, 6-23, and 25 are rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dragan (6,634,051) in view of Jean (FR 2658704 A), Hohlbein (2011/0239387), and Chen (CN111904641A).
Regarding Claim 1, Dragan teaches an applicator head (Ref. 18&20, Fig. 1) with an application tip (Ref. 25, Fig. 1&2) and an elongate body part (Ref. 11&26, Fig. 1),
the applicator comprises first (Ref. 22, Fig. 1) and second kinks (Ref. 24, Fig. 1), the first kink (22) being arranged at a part of the applicator where the two different parts (26&20) at least partially overlap one another (Fig. 1&4, shows the parts would overlap when viewed in a direction indicated by cross section 4 along the longitudinal axis), the first kink having a first width in a radial direction of the applicator (Fig. 1 shows a width in a radial direction of the applicator) and a first length in a longitudinal direction of the applicator (Fig. 1 shows a length in a longitudinal direction), the second kink including a second width in the radial direction (Fig. 1 shows a second width in a radial direction of the applicator) and a second length in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 1 shows a second length in a longitudinal direction),
one of the first (22) and second (24) kinks arranged directly adjacent to part of the elongate body (Fig. 1).
Dragan fails to explicitly teach the first length being different from the second length. An embodiment of Dragan further teaches an applicator (Fig. 12) comprising:
an applicator head (Ref. 150, Fig. 12) with an applicator tip (Ref. 152, Fig. 12) and an elongate body part (Ref. 153, Fig. 1),
the applicator comprises first (Ref. 156, Fig. 12) and second kinks (Ref. 155, Fig. 12), the first kink (154) being arranged at a part of the applicator where the two different parts (151&bulge between 154 and 155) at least partially overlap one another (Fig. 12, shows the parts would overlap when viewed from a top down view along the longitudinal axis), the first kink having a first width in a radial direction of the applicator(Fig. 12 shows a width in a radial direction of the applicator) and a first length in a longitudinal direction of the applicator (Fig. 12 shows a length in a longitudinal direction), the second kink including a second width in the radial direction (Fig. 12 shows a second width in a radial direction of the applicator) and a second length in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 12 shows a second length in a longitudinal direction), the first length being different from the second length (Fig. 12 shows the first and second lengths are different from one another). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first and second kink, as taught by Dragan, to have different lengths, as taught by Dragan embodiment, to allow for more controlled flexible movement of the head and since such a modification is merely an alternate equivalent structure to perform the function of hingedly connecting the head portion to the handle portion.
Dragan fails to explicitly the first width being different from the second width. Jean teaches an applicator for applying materials to teeth with kinks and an elongated body and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Jean teaches an applicator (Ref. 2, Fig. 8) comprising an applicator head (Ref.7 , Fig. 8) with an elongate body part (Ref. 4, Fig. 8), the applicator comprising first and second kinks (Fig. 4 annotated below), the first kink being arranged at a part of the applicator where the two different parts at least partially overlap one another (Fig. 8), the first kink having a first width in a radial direction of the applicator(Fig. 4 shows a width in a radial direction of the applicator) and a first length in a longitudinal direction of the applicator (Fig. 4 shows a length in a longitudinal direction), the second kink including a second width in the radial direction (Fig. 4 shows a second width in a radial direction of the applicator) and a second length in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 4 shows a second length in a longitudinal direction), the first width being different from the second width (Fig. 4 shows the first width would be smaller than the second width). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the width of the kinks, as taught by Dragan, to be different, as taught by Jean, to allow the brush to adapt to the users specific dentition providing more comfort and ergonomics of the user ([Pg. 2, Para 7]).
Dragan as modified fails to explicitly teach the applicator comprises two parts of different material. Hohlbein teaches an applicator for applying materials to teeth and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Hohlbein further teaches the applicator (Ref. 10, fig. 1) comprising two parts of different material (Ref. 18&16, Fig. 1, [0042] describes the grip portion and handle are two different materials). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the elongated member, as taught by Dragan, to be a gripping material, as taught by Hohlbein, to facilitate gripping of the handle ([0043]).
Dragan further teaches wherein a cross-section of the elongate body part (Fig. 3-4) along at least a majority of a length (L) of the elongate body part (Fig. 1). Dragon as modified fails to explicitly teach the cross section of the elongate body part is at least substantially formed by one of a triangle and a Reuleaux triangle. Chen teaches a toothbrush with a handle and an applicator for applying materials to teeth and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Chen teaches an elongate body (Ref. 2-1, Fig. 1-4) comprising a cross-section of the elongate body part along at least a majority of a length of the elongate body part at least substantially formed by one of a triangle and a Reuleaux triangle ([Abstract] describes the elongated body (handle) to be a Reuleaux triangle). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the cross section, as taught by Dragan as modified, with a triangle cross section and a Reuleaux triangle, as taught by Chen, since such a modification would achieve the predictable result of allowing a user to handle the applicator and to provide more ergonomic and comfortable grip of the elongated member ([Abstract]).
PNG
media_image1.png
195
271
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Dragan further teaches wherein a first part of the two parts is the elongate body part (26) and a second part of the two parts is the applicator head (20), at least a part of the applicator head overlapping at least a part of the elongate body part (Fig. 1&4, shows the head and elongated body part would overlap when viewed in a direction indicated by cross section 4 along the longitudinal axis).
Regarding Claim 4, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Dragan further teaches wherein the application tip comprises one of a brush with bristles and a foam, or the application tip is configured to store a liquid (Ref. 27, [Col. 4, Line 1-9] describes containing dental material such as fluids).
Regarding Claim 6, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Dragan further teaches wherein the application tip is a brush with bristles (Ref. 27, Fig. 1), and the brush is formed by at least one of a thermoplastic elastomer ([col. 4, Lines 1-9] describe the bristles as a nylon fibers which as a type of thermoplastic elastomer), a thermoplastic polyurethane, a thermoplastic vulcanizate, and a thermoplastic olefin elastomer.
Regarding Claim 7, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Dragan further teaches wherein the first and second kinks are configured to be bent in one direction (Fig. 1 shows the kinks bent), such that the application tip is capable of facing upwardly relative to the elongate body part (Fig. 1 shows the application tip is capable of bending to be upward relative to the elongate body part when sideways).
Regarding Claim 8, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Dragan further teaches wherein at least one of the first and second kinks is a peripherally extending groove (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and given the teachings of the material of grip portion being applied to the elongated portion, Dragon as modified further teaches wherein the applicator head is made from a material different from the elongate body part ([0042], Hohlbein).
Regarding Claim 10, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and given the teachings of the material of grip portion being applied to the elongated portion, Hohlbein further teaches wherein the elongate body part is made from one of polypropylene ([0042] describes the elongate portion being made of polypropylene) and polylactide.
Regarding Claim 11, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Dragan further teaches wherein the applicator head comprises a material selected from the group of members consisting of a thermoplastic elastomer ([col. 4, Lines 1-9] describe the bristles as a nylon fibers which as a type of thermoplastic elastomer), a thermoplastic polyurethane, a thermoplastic vulcanizate, a thermoplastic olefin elastomer, polyethylene, polypropylene, poly vinyl chloride, polyurethane, polystyrene and combinations thereof.
Regarding Claim 15, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Dragan further teaches an undulating surface (Ref. 34, Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 16, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and Dragan further teaches herein the undulating surface covers a portion of an outer surface of the elongate body part (Fig. 1). However, Dragan as modified fails to explicitly teach the undulating surface covers between 5 and 30 %, of an outer surface of the elongate body part. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface coverage of the undulating surface, as taught by Dragan, to between 5 and 30% degrees since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see [0035] indicating the undulating surface “can” be within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 17, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and Dragan further teaches wherein the undulating surface comprises a plurality of peaks and valleys (Fig. 4 annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
201
257
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 12-13 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dragan as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dodd (6,345,406).
Regarding Claim 12, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the applicator head is configured to receive a part of the elongate body part. Dodd teaches a teaches an applicator for applying materials to teeth and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Dodd teaches an applicator head (Ref. 30, Fig. 1) that is removable from an elongated member (fig. 1), wherein the applicator head (Ref. 30, Fig. 1) is configured to receive a part of the elongate body part (Ref. 12, Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the applicator head and elongated member, as taught by Dragan as modified, to be removable with the removing structures wherein the applicator head configured to receive a part of the elongate body, as taught by Dodd, to allow for easy replacement of used heads and attach heads for other uses ([Col. 1, Lines 52-60]).
Regarding Claim 13, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, given the teachings of the removable structures from Dodd, Dodd further teaches wherein the part of the elongate body part received within the applicator head (30) comprises one or more centering elements (Ref. 16, Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 25, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, given the teachings of the centering elements from Dodd, Dodd further teaches wherein the centering elements (16) are raised structures configured to engage the applicator head (Fig. 1) and prevent movement thereof relative to the elongate body part ([Col. 3, Lines 25-27] recites “…securing the locking nodule 16…”, fig. 3 shows the centering element would be capable of preventing movement of the head relative to the elongate body part).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dragan as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Black (6,546,588).
Regarding Claim 14, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Dragan further teaches wherein the application tip is a foam application tip ([Col. 1, Lines 23-25] describes applicators being made of a foam). Dragan as modified fails to explicitly teach a foam application tip made from an open cell foam having pores. Black teaches a cleaning device to hold liquids and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to hold and deliver liquid to a surface. Black teaches a foam application tip (Ref. 60, Fig. 1) made from an open cell foam having pores (Fig. 1, [col. 3, Line 13-14] describes large, open cell foam). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the foam application tip, as taught by Dragan as modified, to be made from an open cell foam having pores, as taught by Black, to allow for the tip to retain dimensional stability when applying to the surface and to have better wear-resistance([Col. 3, Line 13-17]).
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dragan as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huber (2008/0315668).
Regarding Claim 18, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach one or more first points of injection. Huber teaches a toothbrush with bristles and a handle and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Huber further teaches wherein one or more first points of injection ([0002] describes injection points at different points to form the handle or elongated portions) to create multiple different components of the toothbrush by injection molding ([0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the applicator, as taught by Dragan as modified, with one or more first points of injection, as taught by Huber, to create injection molded parts thereby allowing for flexible mounting of the head elements ([0017]).
Regarding Claim 19, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 18, as described above, and given the teaching of the injection points, Huber further teaches wherein the one or more first points of injection are provided at the elongate body part ([0002] describes using injection molding to form the elements such as the gripping zone by different injection points).
Regarding Claim 20, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach one or more first points of injection, and one of the one or more first points of injection is disposed at the undulating surface. Huber teaches a toothbrush with bristles and a handle and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Huber further teaches wherein one of the one or more first points of injection at the undulating surface ([0002] describes injection points at different points to form the handle or the gripping zone by different injection points) to create multiple different components of the toothbrush by injection molding ([0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the undulating surface, as taught by Dragan as modified, with one of the one or more first points of injection, as taught by Huber, to create injection molded parts allowing for easy manufacturing and since such a limitation would yield the predictable result of having a structure to allow the user to manipulate the head.
Regarding Claim 21, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 18, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach one or more first points of injection. Huber teaches a toothbrush with bristles and a handle and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Huber further teaches one or more second points of injection ([0002] describes injection points at a second point to form the head and bristle portions). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the applicator, as taught by Dragan as modified, with one or more second points of injection, as taught by Huber, to create injection molded parts thereby allowing for flexible mounting of the head elements ([0017]).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dragan as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wolfsgruber (2015/0164207).
Regarding Claim 22, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 21, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more second points of injection are provided at the applicator head. Wolfsgruber further teaches a toothbrush with bristles and a handle and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Wolfsgruber further teaches wherein the one or more second points of injection are provided at the applicator head (Fig. 3, [0036] describes injection molding through cavities at the applicator head to form the bristles). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the second points of injection, as taught by Dragan as modified, at the applicator head, as taught by Wolfsgruber, to easily manufacturing bristles and to yield the predictable result of creating an applicator tip to apply and store a liquid to a surface.
Regarding Claim 23, Dragan as modified teaches the limitations of claim 21, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more second points of injection are provided at one of the first and second kinks arranged at the applicator head. Wolfsgruber further teaches a toothbrush with bristles and a handle and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Wolfsgruber further teaches wherein the one or more second points of injection are provided at one of the first and second kinks arranged at the applicator head (Fig. 3, [0036] describes injection molding through cavities at the applicator head to form the bristles). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the second points of injection, as taught by Dragan as modified, at one of the first and second kinks arranged the applicator head, as taught by Wolfsgruber, to easily manufacturing bristles and to yield the predictable result of creating an applicator tip to apply and store a liquid to a surface.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dragan (6,634,051) in view of Jean (FR2658704A), Hohlbein (2011/0239387), Hubber (2008/0315668), and Chen (CN111904641A).
Regarding Claim 24, Dragan teaches A method of forming an applicator (Fig. 1) comprising:
an applicator head (Ref. 18&20, Fig. 1) with an application tip (Ref. 25, Fig. 1&2) and an elongate body part (Ref. 11&26, Fig. 1), the applicator comprises first (Ref. 22, Fig. 1) and second kinks (Ref. 24, Fig. 1), the first and second kink being arranged at a part of the applicator where the two different parts (26&20) at least partially overlap one another (Fig. 1&4 shows the parts would overlap when viewed in a direction indicated by cross section 4 along the longitudinal axis), one of the first (22) and second (24) kinks arranged directly adjacent to part of the elongate body (Fig. 1 shows the second kink directly adjacent to part of the elongate body (11&26)), the first kink having a first width in a radial direction of the applicator (Fig. 1 shows a width in a radial direction of the applicator) and a first length in a longitudinal direction of the applicator (Fig. 1 shows a length in a longitudinal direction), the second kink including a second width in the radial direction (Fig. 1 shows a second width in a radial direction of the applicator) and a second length in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 1 shows a second length in a longitudinal direction).
Dragan fails to explicitly teach the first length being different from the second length. An embodiment of Dragan further teaches an applicator (Fig. 12) comprising:
an applicator head (Ref. 150, Fig. 12) with an applicator tip (Ref. 152, Fig. 12) and an elongate body part (Ref. 153, Fig. 1),
the applicator comprises first (Ref. 156, Fig. 12) and second kinks (Ref. 155, Fig. 12), the first kink (154) being arranged at a part of the applicator where the two different parts (151&bulge between 154 and 155) at least partially overlap one another (Fig. 12, shows the parts would overlap when viewed from a top down view along the longitudinal axis), the first kink having a first width in a radial direction of the applicator(Fig. 12 shows a width in a radial direction of the applicator) and a first length in a longitudinal direction of the applicator (Fig. 12 shows a length in a longitudinal direction), the second kink including a second width in the radial direction (Fig. 12 shows a second width in a radial direction of the applicator) and a second length in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 12 shows a second length in a longitudinal direction), the first length being different from the second length (Fig. 12 shows the first and second lengths are different from one another). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first and second kink, as taught by Dragan, to have different lengths, as taught by Dragan embodiment, to allow for more controlled flexible movement of the head and since such a modification is merely an alternate equivalent structure to perform the function of hingedly connecting the head portion to the handle portion.
Dragan fails to explicitly the first width being different from the second width. Jean teaches an applicator for applying materials to teeth with kinks and an elongated body and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Jean teaches an applicator (Ref. 2, Fig. 8) comprising an applicator head (Ref.7 , Fig. 8) with an elongate body part (Ref. 4, Fig. 8), the applicator comprising first and second kinks (Fig. 4 annotated below), the first kink being arranged at a part of the applicator where the two different parts at least partially overlap one another (Fig. 8), the first kink having a first width in a radial direction of the applicator(Fig. 4 shows a width in a radial direction of the applicator) and a first length in a longitudinal direction of the applicator (Fig. 4 shows a length in a longitudinal direction), the second kink including a second width in the radial direction (Fig. 4 shows a second width in a radial direction of the applicator) and a second length in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 4 shows a second length in a longitudinal direction), the first width being different from the second width (Fig. 4 shows the first width would be smaller than the second width). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the width of the kinks, as taught by Dragan, to be different, as taught by Jean, to allow the brush to adapt to the users specific dentition providing more comfort and ergonomics of the user ([Pg. 2, Para 7]).
Dragan as modified fails to explicitly teach the applicator comprises two parts of different material. Hohlbein teaches an applicator for applying materials to teeth and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Hohlbein further teaches the applicator (Ref. 10, fig. 1) comprising two parts of different material (Ref. 18&16, Fig. 1, [0042] describes the grip portion and handle are two different materials). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the elongated member, as taught by Dragan, to be a gripping material, as taught by Hohlbein, to facilitate gripping of the handle ([0043]).
Dragan as modified fails to explicitly teach injection molding the elongate body part and then injection molding the applicator head with parts of the applicator head being over molded onto parts of the elongate body part. Huber teaches a toothbrush with bristles and a handle and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Huber further teaches injection molding the elongate body part ([0007] describes injection molding multiple components of the toothbrush) and then injection molding the applicator head with parts of the applicator head ([0007] describes injection molding multiple components of the toothbrush) being over molded onto parts of the elongate body part ([0012] describes components overfilled to distribute from one injection point to another and examiner interprets this as over-injection of the molds to create other parts). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the applicator, as taught by Dragan as modified , to be formed by injection moulding and over-injection, as taught by Huber, to allow for flexible mounting of the head elements ([0017]).
Dragan further teaches wherein a cross-section of the elongate body part (Fig. 3-4) along at least a majority of a length (L) of the elongate body part (Fig. 1). Dragon as modified fails to explicitly teach the cross section of the elongate body part is at least substantially formed by one of a triangle and a Reuleaux triangle. Chen teaches a toothbrush with a handle and an applicator for applying materials to teeth and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Chen teaches an elongate body (Ref. 2-1, Fig. 1-4) comprising a cross-section of the elongate body part along at least a majority of a length of the elongate body part at least substantially formed by one of a triangle and a Reuleaux triangle ([Abstract] describes the elongated body (handle) to be a Reuleaux triangle). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the cross section, as taught by Dragan as modified, with a triangle cross section and a Reuleaux triangle, as taught by Chen, since such a modification would achieve the predictable result of allowing a user to handle the applicator and to provide more ergonomic and comfortable grip of the elongated member ([Abstract]).
PNG
media_image1.png
195
271
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 and 24 changes the scope of the claim thereby necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the first width being different from the second width and the first length being different from the second length has been fully considered and is not persuasive. Examiner has applied Dragan and Jean to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. An embodiment of Dragan further teaches an applicator (Fig. 12) comprising:
an applicator head (Ref. 150, Fig. 12) with an applicator tip (Ref. 152, Fig. 12) and an elongate body part (Ref. 153, Fig. 1),
the applicator comprises first (Ref. 156, Fig. 12) and second kinks (Ref. 155, Fig. 12), the first kink (154) being arranged at a part of the applicator where the two different parts (151&bulge between 154 and 155) at least partially overlap one another (Fig. 12, shows the parts would overlap when viewed from a top down view along the longitudinal axis), the first kink having a first width in a radial direction of the applicator(Fig. 12 shows a width in a radial direction of the applicator) and a first length in a longitudinal direction of the applicator (Fig. 12 shows a length in a longitudinal direction), the second kink including a second width in the radial direction (Fig. 12 shows a second width in a radial direction of the applicator) and a second length in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 12 shows a second length in a longitudinal direction), the first length being different from the second length (Fig. 12 shows the first and second lengths are different from one another). While Jean teaches an applicator for applying materials to teeth with kinks and an elongated body and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Jean teaches an applicator (Ref. 2, Fig. 8) comprising an applicator head (Ref.7 , Fig. 8) with an elongate body part (Ref. 4, Fig. 8), the applicator comprising first and second kinks (Fig. 4 annotated below), the first kink being arranged at a part of the applicator where the two different parts at least partially overlap one another (Fig. 8), the first kink having a first width in a radial direction of the applicator(Fig. 4 shows a width in a radial direction of the applicator) and a first length in a longitudinal direction of the applicator (Fig. 4 shows a length in a longitudinal direction), the second kink including a second width in the radial direction (Fig. 4 shows a second width in a radial direction of the applicator) and a second length in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 4 shows a second length in a longitudinal direction), the first width being different from the second width (Fig. 4 shows the first width would be smaller than the second width).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
